[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-487?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12584973#action_12584973
]
stack commented on HBASE-487:
-----------------------------
Yeah -- license prevents bundling.
If shell were optional, requiring user take optional installation step would be
fine but IMO shell is core.
Other jython/jruby downsides:
* Size on disk. JRuby is 25M just counting ruby classes and jar. Jython is
smaller. Would need to trim either (Beanshell is small).
* JRuby is more awkward to integrate than jython/groovy/beanshell
* Jython is a python that is 6 years old -- 2.2.1 (From michael B). In the
past, its been awkward having to remember the old syntax when you've been used
to modern cpythons
(I wonder what groovy's grails is like as a RonR clone)
> Replace hql w/ a hbase-friendly jirb or jython shell
> ----------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: HBASE-487
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-487
> Project: Hadoop HBase
> Issue Type: Wish
> Reporter: stack
> Assignee: stack
> Priority: Minor
> Attachments: groovy.patch
>
>
> The hbase shell is a useful admin and debugging tool but it has a couple of
> downsides. To extend, a fragile parser definition needs tinkering-with and
> new java classes must be added. The current test suite for hql is lacking
> coverage and the current code could do with a rewrite having evolved
> piecemeal. Another downside is that the presence of an HQL interpreter gives
> the mis-impression that hbase is like a SQL database.
> This 'wish' issue suggests that we jettison HQL and instead offer users a
> jirb or jython command line. We'd ship with some scripts and jruby/jython
> classes that we'd source on startup to do things like import base client
> classes -- so folks wouldn't have to remember all the packages stuff sat in
> -- and added a pretty-print for scanners and getters outputting text, xhtml
> or binary. They would also make it easy to do HQL-things in jruby/python
> script.
> Advantages: Already-written parser with no need of extension probing deeper
> into hbase: i.e. better for debugging than HQL could ever be. Easy extension
> adding scripts/modules rather than java code. Less likely hbase could be
> confused for a SQL db.
> Downsides: Probably more verbose. Requires ruby or python knowledge
> ("Everyone knows some sql"). Big? (jruby lib is 24M).
> I was going to write security as downside but HQL suffers this at the moment
> too -- though it has been possible to sort the updates from the selects in
> the UI to prevent modification of the db from the UI, something that would be
> hard to do in a jruby/jython parser.
> What do others think?
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
